 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Vasquez1/21/2003
at a log is kept of all of those tests. She indicated further that the maintenance schedule followed by the hospital is the one prescribed in the operator's manual for the Abbott TDxFLx.
When performing a blood test, Klingelhoefer takes a reagent pack out of a refrigerator kept at 2 to 8 degrees Celsius, the temperature at which the reagents are required to be stored. Klingelhoefer had no personal knowledge, however, as to what temperature the reagent packs or the controls, which must also be stored at 2 to 8 degrees Celsius, were stored at prior to their being placed in the hospital's refrigerator. She testified that a log is kept of the temperature of the refrigerator in which the controls and reagents are stored and that to her knowledge, the refrigerator had never failed to be within the 2- to 8-degree Celsius range required by title 177. Klingelhoefer indicated that the hospital did not perform any independent testing of the reagent packs to ensure they were what they were purported to be. The control samples are tested along with patients' samples, and the results for the control samples are compared to the information provided by Abbott Laboratories.
Klingelhoefer testified that patients' blood is kept in a locked refrigerator before it is removed for testing. When she removes a blood sample to begin a test, she observes whether the evidence tape thereon has been tampered with. Klingelhoefer indicated that the evidence tape on Vasquez' sample was intact and that prior to testing his blood on the Abbott TDxFLx, she checked the maintenance log for that machine, which log was up to date. Klingelhoefer testified that she followed all of the policies and procedures of the hospital and of title 177 in testing Vasquez' blood. She also indicated that control samples were run in the Abbott TDxFLx at the beginning and end of the test of Vasquez' blood and that the test results for the control samples came back within acceptable ranges.
We conclude, based on the Nebraska Supreme Court's reasoning in State v. Green, 223 Neb. 338, 389 N.W.2d 557 (1986), that the district court in the present case did not abuse its discretion in admitting the results of Vasquez' blood alcohol testing. We also indicate our disagreement with the holding in State v. Hiemstra, 6 Neb. App. 940, 579 N.W.2d 550 (1998), to the extent to which it suggests that the issues surrounding any "deficiencies" in the techniques for testing blood under title 177 are of foundational consequence rather than going only to the weight and credibility of the evidence, as indicated by Green, supra.
Enhancement of Sentence.
Finally, Vasquez asserts that the district court erred in receiving exhibits 111 through 114 and enhancing his DUI conviction. At the sentencing and enhancement hearing of March 14, 2002, the State offered exhibits 111 through 114, which were documents purported to show prior convictions of Vasquez for DUI. Exhibits 111 and 114 show convictions of "Ron L. Vasquez" for DUI entered in the county court for Buffalo County on October 31, 1996, and July 18, 1991, respectively. Exhibits 112 and 113 show convictions of "Ronnie L. Vasquez" for DUI entered in the county court for Buffalo County on February 17, 1995, and October 21, 1991, respectively. Vasquez objected to the receipt of these exhibits, claiming, based on the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, that he was unable to cross-examine effectively the individuals who prepared those exhibits to determine whether the defendants in those convictions were the same individual as the defendant in this case. We note that the district court in fact received only exhibits 112 and 113 for sentencing purposes. The court found no evidence that
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Nebraska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|